KnightExemplar wrote:Besides, I hardly think that Gamergate's platform was successful. It was kind of just an internet drama that unfolded years ago. Tying the election of Donald Trump to Gamergate seems rather ridiculous to me.

I think it's less "Gamergate was the Trump campaign's beta" and more "the nastier elements of Gamergate were a harbinger of the alt right -- a movement steeped in white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia -- and armed with computer literacy and an interest in social media".

Except the Alt-right has existed for far longer than since 2014.

Stormfront has been on the internet since 1996. The Alt-Right was a harbinger for the Alt-right. Its been online since... forever. Gosh, I explicitly remember arguing with "Racialists" as early as 2007 or maybe earlier.

Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia? These have existed as long as I've made discussions online. My entire online-life has come across fringe alt-right groups everywhere.

No seriously, read the article:

Using 4chan (and then the more sympathetic offshoot 8Chan) to plan their subversions and attacks made Gamergate a terribly sloppy operation, leaving a trail of evidence that made it quite clear the whole thing was purposefully, plainly nasty. But the video game industry didn’t have the spine to react, and allowed the movement to coagulate – forming a mass of spiteful disappointment that Breitbart was only more than happy to coddle.

This article is directly saying that Gamergate basically led to Breitbart's rise. That's a load of bullshit. The forces at play here are far stronger and have a far longer history than 2014... and a ~3 month internet drama doesn't really give you a good viewpoint on the Alt-Right or its rise.

This article is trash. I'm sorry to say. It doesn't understand anything about either Gamergate nor Trump supporters. Even the nasty Trump supporters (aka: the Alt Right) are grossly simplified in the article. If you want to study the Alt-Right, just go over to Stormfront and read how people talk. Lurk around for a while, and you'd get it.

I mean, white supremacists are literally right over there. You can talk to them whenever you want to see their viewpoint.

The best I can say is... people from Stormfront probably sided with Gamergate, because Sarkeesian sided with Zoe Quinn. I mean, that's how the lines in the sand were drawn.

KnightExemplar wrote:Thunderf00t seems to be just anti-Sarkeesian however. He probably sided with Gamergate because Sarkeesian sided with Zoe Quinn.

There's a bit of silliness to the whole drama. The whole Gamergate thing included a bunch of weird people drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. Part of the issue is that neither side was very well defined.

I don't disagree, but I'm sure how you can see elements of Gamergate would be attractive toward those who would later become part of the alt right, yes? Even if it wasn't about them and their "issues", it's clear they tried to make it about them and their issues -- and now, in the alt right, they've created a platform that doesn't have to bother trying to shout over moderates or care about their issues.

KnightExemplar wrote:Except the Alt-right has existed for far longer than since 2014.

Stormfront has been on the internet since 1996. The Alt-Right was a harbinger for the Alt-right. Its been online since... forever. Gosh, I explicitly remember arguing with "Racialists" as early as 2007 or maybe earlier.

Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia? These have existed as long as I've made discussions online. My entire online-life has come across fringe alt-right groups everywhere.

Ah; part of the divide here might be that I associate the alt right more strongly with neo-reactionaries and "dark enlightenment" types, which -- while pre-empting Gamergate -- started gaining traction around the same time (and offered numerous opinion pieces on Gamergate -- one guess who's side *they* were on!).

But when I say "harbinger", I mean more in the sense that they were an alarm bell that these ideas were going to become more mainstream. To "throw a bone" back, maybe you could argue this was (in part) because of the hyperbolic sensitivity of some liberals to even the slightest whiff of bigotry; as silly of an insult as "social justice warrior" is, it's not like there aren't liberals out there treating social media like a game to be won (grinding their 'rep' by 'calling out' the 'bigots'). Maybe that contributed to an atmosphere of volatile hostility; one that pushed people on the edge over to the other side (the one where "Blue Lives Matter" is somehow a reasonable response to "Black Lives Matter").

KnightExemplar wrote:This article is directly saying that Gamergate basically led to Breitbart's rise. That's a load of bullshit. The forces at play here are far stronger and have a far longer history than 2014... and a ~3 month internet drama doesn't really give you a good viewpoint on the Alt-Right or its rise.

That's a fair cop; the article also mischaracterized the initiating event. I can't defend that, and I won't try. I do think that one good takeaway here is that there's a distinct similarity between the worst of Gamergate and the entirety of the alt right, and I expect there's a lot of political and ideological overlap.

I also think there's something in the idea of a macho fascism that portrays your enemy as both extremely incompetent and scarily competent; that's a theme I've seen in a lot of this, in both areas.

I don't disagree, but I'm sure how you can see elements of Gamergate would be attractive toward those who would later become part of the alt right, yes?

Yeah. But Libertarian ideals are against segregation rules and regulations. So strong Libertarian ideals would also attract racist assholes. But I'd never say that Libertarians are racist assholes, even if they attract that crowd in some subset of their policy decisions.

You can be a staunch, anti-regulatory idealist (to the point where you'd be against segregation laws and regulations)... without actually being a racist. (although I'd say that their actions would directly benefit racists. Still, the distinction is important if you hope to discuss issues with these individuals)

------

After all, the racist jackholes are kinda obvious about it. Its hard to hide from your own nature, when people think "The Mexicans cause problems", they will say that "Mexicans are causing problems". There's an element of "dog-whistling" that does occur here (IE: I can understand how "Build a wall" becomes an anti-Mexican rallying cry), but the issue with dog-whistling is that it actually attracts people who are say... non-racist but actually into immigration reform and prefer secured borders (Ex: Commonly held view of Asian Immigrants. People who have waited 10+ years for their brother to win the immigration lottery and have a chance to enter the USA. Seeing a "Path to Citizenship" is a big problem for Chinese Americans, because it is unfair to them and what their family put up with to enter this country.)

Does that mean that Chinese Americans take opinions that align them to racists? Yes. But that doesn't mean that the Chinese American immigrant who is worried about the integrity of the American immigration system has a "wrong" or "racist" viewpoint.

Hint: I know a Chinese American who was a Trump supporter and totally in the "Lets build a wall" way.

---------

Anyway, where I'm going with this. Gamergate was an internet drama over a few months. One side, alleged "feminists" like Zoe Quinn and Sarkeesian took one side, and the enemies of them took another side. I can agree that there was an alt-right movement that was following Sarkeesian around (since she's their "enemy") joined Gamergate, but the whole event was more than just that. (Furthermore, Sarkeesian's history with the Alt-Right is itself far older than Gamergate).

To glorify Gamergate as anything more than a giant spat where sides were taken... is missing the big picture. Everywhere. You underestimate the strength of racists and xenophobes. You mischaracterize a lot of Gamergaters. You miss out on a lot of important details, and ultimately... end up with pretty shitty article from the Guardian.

KnightExemplar wrote: But I don't think it is any more fair to associate /r/The_Donald with GamerGate. They are uniquely different movements.

...it's literally the same people almost all of the time. Look at KiA, look at the posting history of people on Donald. For fuck's sake, Yiannapolous is a major figure in both camps.

This article is directly saying that Gamergate basically led to Breitbart's rise. That's a load of bullshit. The forces at play here are far stronger and have a far longer history than 2014... and a ~3 month internet drama doesn't really give you a good viewpoint on the Alt-Right or its rise.

No, it's saying that Breitbart took advantage of the controversy and played to one side of it to bolster support. Which is demonstrably true. Again: Milo Yiannapolous.

Yeah. But Libertarian ideals are against segregation rules and regulations. So strong Libertarian ideals would also attract racist assholes. But I'd never say that Libertarians are racist assholes, even if they attract that crowd in some subset of their policy decisions.

You can be a staunch, anti-regulatory idealist (to the point where you'd be against segregation laws and regulations)... without actually being a racist. (although I'd say that their actions would directly benefit racists. Still, the distinction is important if you hope to discuss issues with these individuals)

How exactly do you separate the outcome from the intent here, especially when so much of the pushback against the original intent is "look, the outcome will be abused for racist purposes"? At a certain point, the person defending those policies is making it clear that fair treatment of minorities isn't a priority to them.

No. I don't believe it was. And I believe the entire point of Gamergate was that they weren't. Based on my personal experience hanging around 8chan, 4chan, and KotakuInAction... my conclusion of the situation was that the major hubs of Gamergate were anti-doxxing, anti-Nazi, anti-harassment.

KrytenKoro wrote:Breitbart got in bed with gamergate, that's not something that can be argued.

And that fact contradicts my post how exactly?

Breitbart is the "bigger fish" compared to gamergate.

No, it's saying that Breitbart took advantage of the controversy and played to one side of it to bolster support.

The article is not claiming that gamergate spawned Breitbart, that gamergate is the only thing that gave Breitbart power. It is saying that Breitbart cozied up to gamergate and channeled the power and sentiment gamergate had into its own purposes. You are misrepresenting its argument (that breitbart used gamergate to bolster support) as something absurd (that gamergate was the kingmaker for breitbart and the primary reason it is now represented in the oval office).

I can see how the article is slightly confusingly worded ("After all, the culture war that began in games now has a senior representative in The White House. " could be read, on its own, as "the culture war that representative exists didn't exist before gamergate"), but it's talking about how gamergate and its tactics were absorbed into the greater alt-right collective, and how gamergate tactics are a study in miniature of what to expect from alt-rightists.

There's an element of "dog-whistling" that does occur here (IE: I can understand how "Build a wall" becomes an anti-Mexican rallying cry), but the issue with dog-whistling is that it actually attracts people who are say... non-racist but actually into immigration reform and prefer secured borders (Ex: Commonly held view of Asian Immigrants. People who have waited 10+ years for their brother to win the immigration lottery and have a chance to enter the USA. Seeing a "Path to Citizenship" is a big problem for Chinese Americans, because it is unfair to them and what their family put up with to enter this country.)

Yes, in a movement like that there are currently-innocent allies who overlook what the rest of the movement is doing because of their own ideals. There were Jewish people who supported Hitler for way too long because of his economic policies. But group dynamics being what they are, the hateful stuff said alongside the dogwhistles becomes normalized, becomes tolerated, and eventually, becomes accepted.

KrytenKoro wrote:Breitbart got in bed with gamergate, that's not something that can be argued.

And that fact contradicts my post how exactly?

Breitbart is the "bigger fish" compared to gamergate.

No, it's saying that Breitbart took advantage of the controversy and played to one side of it to bolster support.

The article is not claiming that gamergate spawned Breitbart, that gamergate is the only thing that gave Breitbart power. It is saying that Breitbart cozied up to gamergate and channeled the power and sentiment gamergate had into its own purposes. You are misrepresenting its argument (that breitbart used gamergate to bolster support) as something absurd (that gamergate was the kingmaker for breitbart and the primary reason it is now represented in the oval office).

I can see how the article is slightly confusingly worded ("After all, the culture war that began in games now has a senior representative in The White House. " could be read, on its own, as "the culture war that representative exists didn't exist before gamergate"), but it's talking about how gamergate and its tactics were absorbed into the greater alt-right collective, and how gamergate tactics are a study in miniature of what to expect from alt-rightists.

Here's what is bothering me about your post KrytenKoro... and I think The Great Hippo put it best.

The Great Hippo wrote:An uber-macho fascism that describes the enemy (for there always must be one) as both laughably impotent and horrifyingly powerful

What is Gamergate, in a nutshell? It was a shitty online drama that occurred in 2014. Please don't elevate it beyond what it is. As I stated before: Anita Sarkeesian had the alt-right following her LONG before Gamergate. And while yes, that misogyny and anti-feminism always was around (and in part was absorbed into Gamergate), the overall Gamergate movement is still completely independent of that.

Remember that Based Mom is a heroine of Gamergate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w. This was not an innately anti-feminist movement (although the Alt-Righters were loud... they really didn't fully take over Gamergate IMO).

--------------

The thing is, I've had experience with the Alt-Right for years. They're again, all over the place on the internet. They make their own alliances in various video games and whatever. They attract each other and are just another group force that is on the internet. When lines were drawn in the sand, it'd only be natural for the Alt-Righters to be "against" Sarkeesian, due to the drama going on over there. So of course they'd choose the Gamergate side.

That's about it. To put any more analysis beyond that is looking for something that really isn't there.

KnightExemplar wrote:Here's what is bothering me about your post KrytenKoro... and I think The Great Hippo put it best.

The Great Hippo wrote:An uber-macho fascism that describes the enemy (for there always must be one) as both laughably impotent and horrifyingly powerful

What is Gamergate, in a nutshell? It was a shitty online drama that occurred in 2014. Please don't elevate it beyond what it is. As I stated before: Anita Sarkeesian had the alt-right following her LONG before Gamergate.

What is Gamergate, in a nutshell? It was a shitty online drama that occurred in 2014.

I'm not the one talking about it being laughably impotent. I'm not the one talking about it being a shitty online drama. I've not thought it was laughably impotent since it became anything more than "huh, this one game developer slept with a game writer, that's really none of my business". Laughably amoral and irrational, yes, deserving of disgust, but not "laughably impotent, not to be worried about". Would I be posting half the stuff I posted if I thought that gamergate and what it represents posed no threat at all?

And while yes, that misogyny and anti-feminism always was around (and in part was absorbed into Gamergate), the overall Gamergate movement is still completely independent of that.

...you're using Gamergate support for Christina Hoff Summers and her arguments as evidence that Gamergate is independent of anti-feminism? She's one of it's main spokespeople! Virtually all she does is talk about how she thinks feminists are ruining society and oppressing men.

Normalization. Tolerance. Acceptance.

When lines were drawn in the sand, it'd only be natural for the Alt-Righters to be "against" Sarkeesian, due to the drama going on over there. So of course they'd choose the Gamergate side.

....and the Gamergate side accepted them in, buddied up with them, performed "OPs" like Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies where they went outside of their nominal goals to assist in other alt-right causes. That's the issue. Gamergate was absorbed into the alt-right, almost 100%.

The thing is, I've had experience with the Alt-Right for years. They're again, all over the place on the internet. They make their own alliances in various video games and whatever. They attract each other and are just another group force that is on the internet. When lines were drawn in the sand, it'd only be natural for the Alt-Righters to be "against" Sarkeesian, due to the drama going on over there. So of course they'd choose the Gamergate side.

That's about it. To put any more analysis beyond that is looking for something that really isn't there.

It really sounds like you're saying "Well, NeoNazis exist, sometimes they get into power, what's the point of further analysis of how they do that." It sounds like you're telling people to wash their hands of explicit fascism being elected to a position of power in a major country, because "it's just there, it's just natural", as if that means it should be somehow acceptable.

I think I must be misunderstanding you, but that's what it sounds like.

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

...you're using Gamergate support for Christina Hoff Summers and her arguments as evidence that Gamergate is independent of anti-feminism? She's one of it's main spokespeople! Virtually all she does is talk about how she thinks feminists are ruining society and oppressing men.

Are you suggesting to me that Christina Hoff Summers is "Alt-Right" ?? Because she's taken the side of Gamergate?

I can't say that I've followed her very specifically, but I see that she has several publications in "The Huffington Post", and doesn't seem to be a radical figure at all.

This is the issue. You label someone as "your enemy" and then you perpetually attack them to make them seem unreasonable. That's not a strategy that works, and frankly, I'm glad that the strategy failed against Trump. Honestly, liberals have a lot of good reasons and good policy ideas, but the main methodology of attack is innately broken.

If you're sad that yelling "You're a racist" for 2 years straight didn't convince anybody to not vote for Donald Trump... well... I'm sorry. I can't be happier that that fallacious line of attack has failed. That's just the facts. On the other hand, I'll stand with you against any abuses that happen because Donald Trump is President. I can tell you personally that I've voted against Trump multiple times: in the Republican primary as well as in the main election.

KnightExemplar wrote:Are you suggesting to me that Christina Hoff Summers is "Alt-Right" ?? Because she's taken the side of Gamergate?

I can't say that I've followed her very specifically, but I see that she has several publications in "The Huffington Post", and doesn't seem to be a radical figure at all.

I'm suggesting to you that she is anti-feminist. Because when trying to rebut the notion that Gamergate had a strong current of anti-feminism, you pointed to their support for a woman who is described as a strident anti-feminist in nearly all coverage of her. Most of what she has written attacks feminism. Merely being published in HuffPo doesn't make you a feminist -- it mostly just means you can draw clicks. The best thing that could be said about HuffPo's moral backbone is that it attempts to "teach the controversy" in regards to stuff like this, much like other parts of the MSM.

I can't say that I've followed her very specifically

Then it really strongly feels like you pulled I "well I have black friends, so", then.

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

This is the issue. You label someone as "your enemy" and then you perpetually attack them to make them seem unreasonable.

Ignoring the main issue of "criticizing the accuracy of the other person's argument is the main way to prove their suggestion is unworkable", you somehow didn't see this in Gamergate? You don't see that in your post?

Is it now out-of-bounds to point out when someone is factually wrong? Jesus.

Politics is not the arbiter of truth. I am allowed to speak the truth and have it still be the truth even if it doesn't sway the populace to agreeing with me. I am allowed to speak the truth because it is the truth, not because it's meant to be a "line of attack". I am allowed to have opinions that are sincere, and not just political grandstanding.

In what world does "this politician was elected despite being alleged to be racist" mean "this politician was not actually racist". That is the most intensely self-contradictory claim, considering that so many people I've heard spouting it on reddit or in journals or across the media are the same ones who raged for eight years about Obama. It's intensely false.

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

It's only a fallacy if you're deflecting argument against one of his policies by pointing out that he is racist. If your talking about his character, trustworthiness, or general fitness to be president of the United States, then it is relevant.

...you're using Gamergate support for Christina Hoff Summers and her arguments as evidence that Gamergate is independent of anti-feminism? She's one of it's main spokespeople! Virtually all she does is talk about how she thinks feminists are ruining society and oppressing men.

Are you suggesting to me that Christina Hoff Summers is "Alt-Right" ?? Because she's taken the side of Gamergate?

I can't say that I've followed her very specifically, but I see that she has several publications in "The Huffington Post", and doesn't seem to be a radical figure at all.

This is the issue. You label someone as "your enemy" and then you perpetually attack them to make them seem unreasonable. That's not a strategy that works, and frankly, I'm glad that the strategy failed against Trump. Honestly, liberals have a lot of good reasons and good policy ideas, but the main methodology of attack is innately broken.

If you're sad that yelling "You're a racist" for 2 years straight didn't convince anybody to not vote for Donald Trump... well... I'm sorry. I can't be happier that that fallacious line of attack has failed. That's just the facts. On the other hand, I'll stand with you against any abuses that happen because Donald Trump is President. I can tell you personally that I've voted against Trump multiple times: in the Republican primary as well as in the main election.

CHS is treated as anti-feminist by those feminists she critiques. Camille Paglia is treated the same. Minorities who speak out against the orthodoxy of established activist groups are accused of false consciousness/playing Uncle Tom. If you are black and Republican, you must be self hating/deluded. If you are Latino and voted for anyone that isn't Democrat, you are voting against your own interests (funny that outsiders get to tell you what your actual interests are).

It's the leftwing equivalent of right wingers calling someone a RINO.

By all accounts CHS advocates for equity between the genders. She just has philosophical differences with the queer/feminist theorist establishment, and thus she's branded anti-feminist because she doesn't adopt every single part of the left-wing dogma given her more libertatian/conservative leanings.

Alice Dreger has just more recently been the new target of the purity crusades. And she's a left-leaning sex/gender researcher who has a clear record of advocating for intersex rights and now loudly denouncing AMA/AAMC for their praise of Donald Trump's pick for Health and Human Services. She became a target for her involvement and retelling in Galileo's Middle Finger about activist slander of researchers and their numerous efforts to professionally harm individuals who didn't adhere to their ideologies (in this case some trans activists, but there was also another one of a journalist falsely accusing an anthropologist of carrying out the equivalent of eugenics on the Yanomamo people; said journalist did not bother to produce evidence for the charges when contacted, and yet the association for anthropologists did a knee jerk censure of the anthropologist because of that unsubstantiated journalism).

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

KrytenKoro wrote:I'm suggesting to you that she is anti-feminist. Because when trying to rebut the notion that Gamergate had a strong current of anti-feminism, you pointed to their support for a woman who is described as a strident anti-feminist in nearly all coverage of her. Most of what she has written attacks feminism.

I can see why she's controversial, and I can even see why she's extremely frustrating (perhaps even infuriating). The stuff I've read of hers comes off as misleading and even downright oblivious. But is it really anti-feminism? It doesn't matter what the majority of coverage defines her as; it matters only what positions she expresses. She wants to take feminism in a completely different direction rather than see it fail. She seems more like the libertarian who enables racist ideology rather than a supporter of racist ideology.

(I realize for a lot of people, that distinction is cold comfort; that being said, I do think it's enough to stop us short of calling her an "anti-feminist")

That being said, she's definitely not someone I would cite when trying to demonstrate that a movement has feminist advocates. She's to mainstream feminism as Hunter S Thompson is to mainstream news.

KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

It's only a fallacy if you're deflecting argument against one of his policies by pointing out that he is racist. If your talking about his character, trustworthiness, or general fitness to be president of the United States, then it is relevant.

I'll respond to you in the Trump topic (aka: Presidential Election). I don't think further discussion on this particular issue belongs in the Gamergate thread.

KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

Pointing out that the policies he's proposing are racist is not an ad hominem.

Conflating "this man is proposing racist policies" and "this man is racist", then treating that criticism as if it only came in the very barest ad hominem form is disingenuous.

Put simply -- pointing out that a virulent racist and fascist is being put into a position of power to enact his aggressively racist and fascist policies is not an ad hominem, and it requires some pretty strong disingenuous to claim that his racism is irrelevant to why he's dangerous.

CHS is treated as anti-feminist by those feminists she critiques. Camille Paglia is treated the same. Minorities who speak out against the orthodoxy of established activist groups are accused of false consciousness/playing Uncle Tom. If you are black and Republican, you must be self hating/deluded. If you are Latino and voted for anyone that isn't Democrat, you are voting against your own interests (funny that outsiders get to tell you what your actual interests are).

She's treated as an anti-feminist because her career is almost entirely criticism of the feminist movement. This isn't "she's not the right kind of feminist", this is, "she has literally written books talking about how feminism is misguided and wrong".

It is extremely disingenuous to claim she is feminist. You could conceivably argue that, from your point of view, she is "pro-woman", but she has literally decried the movement that is called feminism, and by celebrating her work, Gamergate supporters have explicitly placed themselves in opposition to that movement as well. Not "heretics", not "unorthodox", but straight up "anti-feminists".

The cherry on top is that she is incredibly irresponsible from an academic angle. She misrepresents debates, misuses evidence, and in general is far more of a pundit of O'Reilly's ilk than any kind of actual respectable academic, and that has nothing to do with what her position actually is.

As evidence of this supposed classroom prejudice against boys, Sommers told the audience that schools are replacing boys’ favorite game, “tag,” with a more female-friendly alternative called “circle of friends.” Sommers has been winding people up with this story for more than a decade: It shows up in The War Against Boys; in her 2005 book One Nation Under Therapy; in an interview that year on The Daily Show; and in a Q&A last week with NRO. So what schools, exactly, have outlawed tag? When Jon Stewart asked her, Sommers awkwardly backtracked: “Well, this is recommended in a book called Quit It, which is an anti-bullying curriculum.” In other words: “circle of friends” might be a real thing somewhere; it might not. Tag is not under threat. And neither, contrary to Sommers's claims, are American men.

KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

Pointing out that the policies he's proposing are racist is not an ad hominem.

Conflating "this man is proposing racist policies" and "this man is racist", then treating that criticism as if it only came in the very barest ad hominem form is disingenuous.

Put simply -- pointing out that a virulent racist and fascist is being put into a position of power to enact his aggressively racist and fascist policies is not an ad hominem, and it requires some pretty strong disingenuous to claim that his racism is irrelevant to why he's dangerous.

Just for the record, I moved the discussion to the Presidential topic debate, since it was getting rather Trump specific. Although that topic seems to have moved forward since then.

KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.

It's only a fallacy if you're deflecting argument against one of his policies by pointing out that he is racist. If your talking about his character, trustworthiness, or general fitness to be president of the United States, then it is relevant.

It was a routine deflection from "Why should Clinton be president". People found it extremely difficult in many quarters to support her via her actual merits, and swiftly resorted to decrying Trump instead.

This is indeed weak.

Anyways, as far as what an "anti-feminist" is...look, one can be critical of a movement, and not be against the ideals that caused it. If someone is indeed pro-woman, but doesn't agree with the specific path the feminist movement has taken, there's probably room for discussion there. Shit, plenty of people criticize aspects of movements they have at least some overlap of goals with. Describing people as "anti-feminist" sounds too much like "if you're not with us, you're against us". I mean, Gamergate seems like a clusterfuck in all respects, and I really don't understand why it's nearly such a deal as it was...but it seems to be at least enabled by this kind of confrontational ideology.

Gamergate was a clusterfuck because it spawned from idiots taking an asshole's meandering "expose" about his previous romantic relationship and believing it without the slightest bit of doubt or critical thinking. And because this is the internet, they decided to harass people about it. This of course invited a backlash to them being mouthbreathing harassing sexist idiots, and they created their own backlash because said idiots decided to appropriate "gamer" and "ethics in gaming journalism" as a cover for their idiocy.

I mean, seriously. Half of what anybody knows about Gamergate is that it is fantastically obsessed with Sarkeesian despite the fact that it was them and their ilk that created her as an internet celebrity in the first place.

NaCl wrote:Gamergate was a clusterfuck because it spawned from idiots taking an asshole's meandering "expose" about his previous romantic relationship and believing it without the slightest bit of doubt or critical thinking.

Based on my experience talking with Gamergaters, most of them just seemed pissed at the "censorship" that various Reddit moderators took to their own hands. And that's where the line in the sand was drawn.

The starting event of Gamergate was certainly what you described, but it wasn't the rallying point or what brought Gamergate to critical mass, or what motivated the massive phone-calls to Intel / Mercedes / whatever.

And as the anti-Gamergaters continued to paint all Gamergaters with a broad brush, the more they stood together in support of each other. Anti-gamergaters are confused about the "lack of cognitive dissonance" (how can an acceptable person stand on the side of clear misogynists?). But that's easily explained by the anti-censorship call. (Internet rebellions certainly rally rather strongly on instances of claimed "censorship").

As I've stated before: its just like how one can be part of Occupy Wall Street without necessarily agreeing with the Black Bloc protesters. And attempts to paint the entirety of Occupy as a singular group are met with fierce resistance. Its difficult to convince a leaderless movement that they're committing wrongs... because the majority of the individuals do not commit those wrongs and definitely stand against it.

Based on my experience talking with Gamergaters, most of them just seemed pissed at the "censorship" that various Reddit moderators took to their own hands. And that's where the line in the sand was drawn.

Which is bizarre and childish. No private person owes any other a platform to spew lies and slander. Reddit was fully within its rights and duties (that's why Reddit has moderators in the first place) to work to keep communication productive and prevent legal issues and cases that could get them sued.

The starting event of Gamergate was certainly what you described, but it wasn't the rallying point or what brought Gamergate to critical mass, or what motivated the massive phone-calls to Intel / Mercedes / whatever.

It is beyond hilarious that Gamergate's consistent response to the utter indignity of a private person denying them use of their personal platform is to, rather than stick to their principles, start "operations" aimed at denying that private person the use of their own platform -- via calls to advertisers, calls to supervisors, and targeted boycotts.

Do they care about removing bias from journalism? Then why repeat unverified or sometimes completely disproven lies and slander? Why insist on limiting the number of journals they take in to hold their own beliefs up to verification, telling members that they should only use a few gamergate-friendly journals, especially ones like TechRaptor that doxxed people Gamergate claimed not to support the harassment of?

Do they care about corruption in gaming? Then why go after independent gaming, which has little to no influence, while remaining mum on blatant corruption like Microsoft or AAA gaming studios buying off reviewers?

Do they not care about the "Literally Whos"? Then why keep talking about them?]

Do they believe being blocked from discussing the claims on reddit is a violation of free speech? Then what the fuck was Operation Disrespectful Nod?

Do they believe that one should be allowed to say negative things about other groups, and that hate speech should be protected by the first amendment? Then what was Operation Baby Seal?

"Turnabout is fair play" is a tacit admission that the crusade has no ethical component, and is purely tribalistic. It is an abdication of any alleged moral high ground.

No matter how deep in denial any Gamergater is about the cases of rampant harassment, it should be obvious to all that even the official party line of Gamergate is deeply hypocritical.

Anti-gamergaters are confused about the "lack of cognitive dissonance" (how can an acceptable person stand on the side of clear misogynists?).

No, they've never been confused about that -- quite a lot of them remember being a teenage edgelord, having a hate-on for "meanieheads", and describe themselves as "reformed", and while the misogyny is a common critique of Gamergaters, it isn't what those critical of Gamergate usually mean by "cognitive dissonance".

What they generally mean by "cognitive dissonance" is the industrial-level projection and lack of self-awareness in that nearly every principle Gamergate publicly preaches, they violate themselves. Often in the same statements.

As I've stated before: its just like how one can be part of Occupy Wall Street without necessarily agreeing with the Black Bloc protesters.

A person can disagree with the Black Bloc protestors, but if they participate in Occupy Wall Street while seeking to leverage corporate influence on politics, increase student loan debt, and trick people into foreclosures, most observers will rightly identify them as at best a fool, and at worst a completely amoral craven.

because the majority of the individuals do not commit those wrongs and definitely stand against it.

If the pointed (unsuccessful) attempts at anonymity while spreading harassment were the only wrongs associated with gamergate, it would be somewhat cowardly but overall fine to deny any responsibility for addressing the issues (because by joining a group that supports such actions materially or morally, via arguing in defense of perpetrators, it's pretty difficult to claim one shares no responsibility for those wrongs).

The official party lines of gamergate, the things that members will admit to practicing, are mindbogglingly weird and counter-productive. One of the most common refrains on sites like gamerghazi or wehuntedthemammoth is stuff like "hey, we found an actual case of blatant corruption in gaming journalism, you guys wanna help us fight against it...wait, where did all the gamergaters go?"

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

The official party lines of gamergate, the things that members will admit to practicing, are mindbogglingly weird and counter-productive. One of the most common refrains on sites like gamerghazi or wehuntedthemammoth is stuff like "hey, we found an actual case of blatant corruption in gaming journalism, you guys wanna help us fight against it...wait, where did all the gamergaters go?"

Just like how Occupy didn't come out to vote in 2012, 2014, or 2016.

Turns out that a lot of people are more interested in speaking and protesting than they are about actually fighting the causes they claim to believe in. I'm not surprised by that in the least.

-------

Another comparison point: the longer and harder Occupy went on, the more and more it was about blatantly loitering and "Fuck the Police" culture rather than student loans or worker rights issues. At this point, only the nutjobs remain in Gamergate... much like how by ~November or December (when it got cold), most of the "sane" Occupiers stayed home. Only the fervent supporters came out in the winter-months to camp out, and those guys had far more extreme views than the "original" occupiers of September or October.

Beyond that, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Operation Baby Seal were standard, run-of-the-mill "invasions" which rally up a core group of supporters, then spam emails and/or phone calls as a form of protest. Standard /b/ culture honestly. I guess it was more common to call them "letter drives" in the past? Although these were more digital based.

KrytenKoro wrote:Do they believe being blocked from discussing the claims on reddit is a violation of free speech? Then what the fuck was Operation Disrespectful Nod?

While I can't speak for this instance in particular, just because a particular bit of censorship is legal and not a first amendment violation doesn't make it popular with the internet.

The ol' XKCD comic and various memes act as if the only reason for the disagreement is a misunderstanding of the law. No, people hate being censored. Legal or not. There are literally endless examples of the Internet rallying against some entirely legal bit of squelching something. It's ridiculously predictable, and I'm not sure why people really bother with attempting censorship at this point. I suppose it maybe works if it's something nobody cared about to begin with, but then it's literally pointless. Even things that are minor tend to blow up.

KnightExemplar wrote:Beyond that, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Operation Baby Seal were standard, run-of-the-mill "invasions" which rally up a core group of supporters, then spam emails and/or phone calls as a form of protest. Standard /b/ culture honestly. I guess it was more common to call them "letter drives" in the past? Although these were more digital based.

While I can't speak for this instance in particular, just because a particular bit of censorship is legal and not a first amendment violation doesn't make it popular with the internet.

I'm not saying that boycotts, in and of themselves, are immoral. I'm not in any way saying that these individuals should not be able to attempt boycotts for cause X, Y, or Z.

I'm saying that it's rank hypocrisy for someone whose whole argument is that boycotts and moderation of private platforms is censorship to then engage in boycotts and moderation of private platforms. I'm saying that if they can't even get their message across without engaging in the exact thing they're claiming is unspeakably foul, then they're fools and any attempted fig leaf they try to pull to justify the things their group has committed is an obvious untruth.

It's nonsensical for person X to claim "I only associate with the Westboro Baptist Church because of their support for Catholicism, I shouldn't be held accountable for how they exploit that association" when supporting Catholics isn't even something they do.

If a person joins a group, no matter how much it claims to be leaderless (while still somehow having celebrities, spokespeople, and figureheads?), they are obligated to look not just at the surface-level propaganda and purported ideals, but what the group actually practices. They are obligated to condemn and denounce those who violate their morals even in the name of their goals -- like the Democratic party did with Blagojevich. Fuck, like I regularly do on forums for those opposed to Gamergate, when I see someone step over the line and try to demagogue and rabble-rouse. If the group does not have mechanisms to ameliorate or prevent such violations in the future, if that group throws its hands in the air and says "what can we do", they are obligated to leave that group. They can't be free of responsibility while being an enabler, and it's cowardly for them to act like they can.

KnightExemplar wrote:Beyond that, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Operation Baby Seal were standard, run-of-the-mill "invasions" which rally up a core group of supporters, then spam emails and/or phone calls as a form of protest. Standard /b/ culture honestly. I guess it was more common to call them "letter drives" in the past? Although these were more digital based.

I'm not saying that boycotts, in and of themselves, are immoral.

I'm saying that it's rank hypocrisy for someone whose whole argument is that boycotts and moderation of private platforms is censorship to then engage in boycotts and moderation of private platforms.

Honestly, I don't really see what's hypocritical about that. Operation Baby Seal was a very standard online-protest as far as I could see.

---------

EDIT: An example of hypocritical action would have been the group hacking into the servers and deleting everything. But that's not what they did: they lobbed complaints at Kotaku's advertisers / source of revenue. Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that complaining to Amazon (one company that does advertising through Kotaku's network) was actually going to result in these articles being deleted. (I severely doubt anyone would believe that argument)

Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* The "they did it first, so we're doing it back" is old as hell.

Pretty much a standby of every major political party at this point. Also, many justice systems.

Yes, definitely, and those political parties deserve little to no respect as well. They are obstacles to be dealt with, not any sort of justified figures.

They didn't like Gawker / Kotaku moderators deleting their comments on peticular stories.

They didn't just "not like it", they claimed it was unethical censorship, by removing their access to a private platform to speak -- so they tried to get Gawker and Kotaku's own private platform to speak removed by convincing advertiser's to stop funding them.

I have no opposition to Gawker being boycott. Gawker is amoral scum for how they handle nudes/sex tapes, etc., and I'm glad that Peter Thiel helped get them shut down. But my point is, even if we for a minute grant the benefit of the doubt that all the examples of harassment and bigotry were "No True Gamergater", gamergate as a group proclaimed that the kind of thing disrespectful nod was was a terrible unethical travesty, and then responded to this horrible crime by...agreeing to engage in the same kind of behavior back at Gawker/Kotaku. That's impossible to respect, and erases any thread of legitimate complaint that they had.

EDIT: An example of hypocritical action would have been the group hacking into the servers and deleting everything.

No, because Kotaku did no such thing in the first place. It would certainly make the hypocrisy that much more galling, yes.

But that's not what they did: they lobbed complaints at Kotaku's advertisers / source of revenue.

They lobbed complaints at Kotaku's source of revenue with the explicit and loudly-stated goal of removing Kotaku's access to a private platform.

The thing that they were complaining Kotaku had done to them.

Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that complaining to Amazon (one company that does advertising through Kotaku's network) was actually going to result in these articles being deleted. (I severely doubt anyone would believe that argument)

I am seriously suggesting that their explicitly stated goal was to remove Kotaku's platform, and that most Gamergate sites cheered on the Hulk Hogan lawsuit against Gawker because they wanted "that detestable company [to collapse] into dust."

I am seriously suggesting that the things they say they want to happen are fully contradictory to the ideals they claim justify their movement.

Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* The "they did it first, so we're doing it back" is old as hell.

Pretty much a standby of every major political party at this point. Also, many justice systems.

Yes, definitely, and those political parties deserve little to no respect as well. They are obstacles to be dealt with, not any sort of justified figures.

Penalties like "this company stole money, so now we're taking it from them" are often seen as just, not hypocrisy. Yet, it's basically the same thing.

It seems odd to entirely discount aspects such as who did it first. How *would* one fairly respond, then? If actions are only good or evil, and timeline doesn't matter, how do you punish someone? By being nice to them? Would that work?

Penalties like "this company stole money, so now we're taking it from them" are often seen as just, not hypocrisy. Yet, it's basically the same thing.

"This company stole my platform, so now I'm taking it back" would be justice. If the whole operation was centered around working with Kotaku/whatever to deal with alleged violations of the ToS, or in setting up replacement platforms, we would be left with the mere flagrantly false and slanderous accusations, but there wouldn't be as much hypocrisy.

"This company decided not to hire me, therefore I want them sent into bankruptcy" are not.

It seems odd to entirely discount aspects such as who did it first.

I'm not discounting it. What they did wasn't an attempt at justice for the "wrong" that was done them, it was, at best, eye for an eye. When someone's convicted of murder, they don't let the victim's family murder the guy back anymore. It's no longer about the act being morally wrong it's just about getting even -- so there's no moral high ground.

And sure, if they're willing to admit it's all about tribalism, they wouldn't be as hypocritical. They wouldn't be accused (by reasonable people) of cognitive dissonance. They'd be accused of being loose with the facts and violating basic ethics in doing due diligence and not falsely slandering/harassing people, but they wouldn't be seen as fundamentally hypocritical.

How *would* one fairly respond, then?

Either seek justice and live by one's stated ideals, or if unwilling, acknowledge that stated ideals are not realistically workable and this is all just about a petty grudge.

how do you punish someone?

Restitution and rehabilitation, the normal way. Have them fix what they broke, don't try to break their stuff just so you can be miserable together.

That's giving Gamergate the benefit of the doubt that "moderating slander on a privately-owned platform as per the agreed-upon ToS" can even be rightly called a wrong in the first place. Honestly, given the shit KotakuinAction and 8chan have pulled, such as trying to get a guy arrested solely for whistleblowing on a shit-ton of childporn, I have no inclination to give them the benefit of the doubt, ever. I have no desire to support organizations or groups that enable child abusers -- that's why, even though my internal dogma mostly aligns with that of Catholicism, I do not support the earthly Catholic organization, and won't until they fully dismantle their child-raping apparatus, and denounce its perpetration. I believe strongly in the importance of objectivity and ethics in journalism, even on the gaming level, but I would not join gamergate until it showed that it actually gave a damn about removing the bad apples and engaging its goals in an honest manner.

KrytenKoro, this is really odd for me because I argued on your side before... in another time in a similar (but different) issue.

All I can say is that your viewpoint is impractically unfair to groups that do protests of any kind. After watching many years of protests over the years... on all sides of any issue (liberal, conservative, religious, non-religious, etc. etc.)... these things you're complaining about really just apply to any protest.

Its an issues I've grown to accept. Protesters are dicks, but they do what they do because its the best way for them to gather support. Its important for protesters to remain in the moral clear if they hope to gather a lot of support... and it just seems to me that you think that Gamergate's morality is beyond redemption. Personally speaking, I don't think so, mainly because I know that I've seen much worse protesters through my lifetime to compare them against.

They lobbed complaints at Kotaku's source of revenue with the explicit and loudly-stated goal of removing Kotaku's access to a private platform.

3rd time rule. We have to agree to disagree at this point. I believe you are mischaracterizing what happened here, and its clear that nothing I say will change your opinion.

I'm not discounting it. What they did wasn't an attempt at justice for the "wrong" that was done them, it was, at best, eye for an eye. When someone's convicted of murder, they don't let the victim's family murder the guy back anymore. It's no longer about the act being morally wrong it's just about getting even -- so there's no moral high ground.

What's wrong with an eye for an eye? The issue with not letting victims do the same back is more "holy shit, they might put out the WRONG eye". Edit: "or they may take two eyes for one eye". There's definitely an idea of appropriate proportionality in justice.

Yeah, maybe not every crime is punished exactly equal, but there's significant overlap in justice systems. Fines for financial wrongdoing are totally common, for instance. Not really that big of a deal, either. Sometimes a fine is entirely appropriate, I think.

The idea that the punishment necessarily has to be different than the crime, or else the punisher is a terrible hypocrite, seems odd.

I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

KnightExemplar wrote:and it just seems to me that you think that Gamergate's morality is beyond redemption.

Well, at this point, yes. The things they publicly suggest practicing are fundamentally opposed to what few laudable principles or goals they try to claim (and I'll admit that stuff like the "gamers are dead" articles were clearly intended to inflame, and Sam Biddle is a horse's ass), the bulk of their historical claims have been soundly debunked as extremely dishonest, and while not every single Gamergater may be a literal Nazi, their group has cozied up with literal Nazis, child molestors, and advocates of rape. I do know that there are those who choose to remain within the group and dislike these things, but, to put it simply, more action is needed. It's the same as with having narc relatives who stomp on your boundaries -- you have to enforce clear consequences for violating an ethical norm, or you're not actually enforcing that ethical norm.

What Gamergate is doing is not outright abuse -- they're not, at least as far as I can tell vocally, en masse advocating outright nazi principles, advocating that women cannot claim rape once married, or trading child porn. But by allowing those who do to remain part of the group because "group unity is the most important", they are enabling that bad behavior.

At this point, because of the actions Gamergate has used as its "public ops", because of the harassment that it is very strongly implicated in, and because of the groups with which it has chosen to become allies of convenience, the only way to redeem it would be to have something analagous to the Southern Strategy phenomenon that the Democratic party went through -- the main group would have to switch gears to become outright hostile to the bad elements, commit to practicing their ideals in both word and deed, and the bad apples would have to jump ship en masse. And, well, I'm not seeing that -- instead, looking at their top posts I'm seeing celebration of a youtube argument where one of their own claims sexism doesn't exist, calling a female a reporter a liar for claiming she was sent a death threat, and various pro-Trump threads attacking the claims of Russian interference in the election. I can find two actual threads discussing actual censorship or allegations of unethical journalism (both with an anti-anti-Trump bent, funnily enough), while the rest basically amount to "this thing feminists think is stupid, these claims of racism are stupid, these claims of bigotry are stupid", etc.

For them to be "redeemed", they'd have to start practicing the morally laudable fig leaves they claimed way back in the beginning, or start over with new morally laudable fig leaves, but either way -- start practicing them. But this whole "we're all very leftist even though we are vocally supportive of far right politicians, groups, and ideals" is tiresome.

All I can say is that your viewpoint is impractically unfair to groups that do protests of any kind.

Would most protestors pass my requirements? No. That does not mean that ignoring these requirements does a satisfactory amount for solving the problems they enable.

Personally speaking, I don't think so, mainly because I know that I've seen much worse protesters through my lifetime to compare them against.

I think that what Gamergate, as an organization, practices is fundamentally contradictory to any laudable principles or goals it tries to claim, to the point that you cannot engage in those practices if you sincerely believe in those principles or goals. I don't believe that Gamergate is (in the majority) literally Nazis (although there is objective, solid evidence that much of Gamergate has cozied up with literal Nazis)

What's wrong with an eye for an eye?

That it is objectively inferior to replacing the missing eye.

There's definitely an idea of appropriate proportionality in justice.

Are we talking about Western legal justice, or justice as a concept?

The idea that the punishment necessarily has to be different than the crime, or else the punisher is a terrible hypocrite, seems odd.

A fine is fundamentally different from telling the victim they have a get out of jail free card to go steal something themselves.

There is a fundamental difference in "Person A unlawfully possesses thing B which belongs to Person C, thing B should be returned to Person C" (which returns things to their original just state) and "Person A unlawfully possesses thing B which belongs to Person C, now Person C gets to unlawfully possess thing D".

I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.

Consider, if you will, a situation in which anti-abortion folks are protesting an abortion clinics. Some other group believes they are dicks for doing so. Their protests are making people feel shitty, say.

So, the second group sets up counter protests. Which make the first group feel shitty. Not accidentally, they're quite literally going to the same place to protest. Shit, they probably see this as "having an impact".

I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.

Consider, if you will, a situation in which anti-abortion folks are protesting an abortion clinics. Some other group believes they are dicks for doing so. Their protests are making people feel shitty, say.

So, the second group sets up counter protests. Which make the first group feel shitty. Not accidentally, they're quite literally going to the same place to protest. Shit, they probably see this as "having an impact".

The second group is not hypocrites.

If their argument is that the act of protesting, in general, is morally wrong, yes they are hypocrites, even if their hypocrisy is aimed at achieving an arguably laudable goal.

If their argument is that the act of protesting outside an abortion clinic, regardless of goal, is morally wrong, yes they are hypocrites.

If their argument is that the act of harassing women using the clinic who by definition are already distraught is morally wrong, and they are counter-protesting while studiously avoiding harassing women, they are not hypocrites. If, despite not directly harassing those women, they still make them uncomfortable and make them avoid the clinic, they are not hypocrites, but they are pretty stupid.

Intent doesn't magically erase fault, but it is relevant. Even if the endgoal is arguably laudable, the means must practice those principles. Stuff like this would be hypocrisy if they were using their appointed after-school time to actually promote religious Satanism rather than simply using the name of Satanism as a flashy threat and instead promoting philosophical, secular Satanism. It's definitely possible to use "eye for an eye" as a threat, pointing out how the aggressor would suffer if the same was done to them, but actually performing and endorsing the performance of that thing means they're no longer practicing their principles.

I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.

Consider, if you will, a situation in which anti-abortion folks are protesting an abortion clinics. Some other group believes they are dicks for doing so. Their protests are making people feel shitty, say.

So, the second group sets up counter protests. Which make the first group feel shitty. Not accidentally, they're quite literally going to the same place to protest. Shit, they probably see this as "having an impact".

The second group is not hypocrites.

I think the point is that neither group actually holds as a value "You shouldn't make people feel shitty". As I understand it, what KrytenKoro is arguing is that if Gamergate is opposed to censorship, then they shouldn't be using censorship as a way to advance their goals. In the abortion case, it would be more like if the pro-life group did a protest by showing up en masse at Planned Parenthood and all demanded abortions in order to keep them too busy to help people who really needed them.